Minutes of April 7, 2006 Meeting
- J. Boyle, J. Cassel, T. Haynes (chair), A. Joachim (recorder), T. Kuchi, E. Stec, B. Tipton, D. Wertheimer
1. Review of 2005-6 Goals:
The committee discussed the status of, and progress on, the goals that we had set at the beginning
of this academic year.
Improve information literacy expertise and teaching abilities across RUL
- Information Literacy Deliverables (continued from 2004-2005; mentioned in Cabinet goals)
There has not been much discussion of this topic, directly, although our work on the Searchpath
assessment project was prompted by our need to understand what it was that we hoped to do with
There had been discussion about moving the New Brunswick teaching documents repository to SAKAI
during this AY, although no action has yet been taken. We discussed whether this resource should
move, at all, and whether SAKAI was the proper format, due to a number of questions and concerns
(access, audience, etc.). TJ will consult with Jeris about this, and notify the rest of ISC of the
Some considerations that came from this discussion were:
- Linking this resource to the Useful Links section of the ISC staff page (TH).
- Creating a Creative Commons license to protect some of these works, yet make them freely available.
- Identify the areas of Information Literacy addressed by each document, for use in Middle States Accreditation review.
- Yearly password changes to the repository.
- Assessment of information literacy
- Needed Tutorials:
The committee had done some preliminary work on this topic prior to the decision to assess
Searchpath, and it was decided that this project be continued. A list of existing tutorial
resources both within and outside of the Rutgers community will be compiled. Once the Searchpath
assessment is complete, discussion of student searching habits, in combination with this list, will
provide us with a better idea of which tutorials to focus on.
TH & TJ will review peer institutions to discover what tutorials have been developed outside of
Rutgers, while BT will look for tutorials that are internally generated. From these investigations,
and a review of the assessment interviews, we will generate a list of criteria that constitute a
- SAILS Gap Analysis:
There was discussion of the possibility that the SAILS data would not be useful to us, as we had
- Post-Searchpath Interviews:
Interviewers have commented that they have seen some interesting searching habits among the
students that they have met with. It was proposed that a discussion take place to share these
discoveries with the rest of the team, and to perhaps inform our decisions about tutorials. This
discussion will take place at our May meeting.
Provide financial and personnel support for instructional technology projects
- Searchpath Brown Bag Lunch:
The BB lunch put together to discuss the myths about Searchpath, and to elicit discussion about how
it can be improved upon, was a successful step in this process.
- Distribution of ISC Minutes:
However simple this might seem, the distribution of meeting minutes helps to keep our colleagues
informed about what is happening in ISC.
- Human Subject Testing Certification:
Not only have all members of ISC completed this necessary step in assessment preparation, but so
too have a number of other library staff and faculty. This is helping to create a much more dynamic
set of individuals for future projects.
- Instructional Technology Specialist:
The search for candidates for this position continues.
- Travel & Webcast Funds:
Funding has been made available for those within ISC who wish to attend webcasts or other relevant
- Assessment Gift Cards:
Funds were applied towards the gift cards that subjects for the Searchpath assessment receive upon
completion of the interview.
2. Tutorial Modules:
Much of this discussion was addressed in the review of the ISC goals for the past Academic Year.
Please see above.
3. Progress on Searchpath Assessment:
Searchpath Assessment is continuing to move forward, as interviews are conducted. Tricia has done a
wonderful job of organizing this project and keeping the assessment on track.
Some questions that have arisen from the interviews:
- On Task 3, the maximum number of points is indicated as 34, although the addition of sub-points
only equals 19. What should be done with this?
- Some of the scorecards and articles that are being sent to individuals via e-mail may be getting
lost in SPAM folders. Please be sure to check this location, if you are expecting to receive these
Meeting adjourned at 11:45AM. Next meeting will be at TSB, on May 5th, 2006.